New features wanted!! Apply here!

[Watermark_JS]

I expect there is a hardware limitation involved, but the 16-character Nickname (without the ability to use any special characters) can get frustrating -- especially in a semi-large program.  The Description field often just ends up being a decoder ring for a cryptic Nickname.

There is often wasted effort, where the Nickname and Description contain basically the same information, just in a different format.  Example:

• Nickname: MB_C1_PIDP_AC
• Description: ModBus, Clarifier #1, PID P-Gain, Acid Control Loop

The inability to search in the Description field further contributes to the problem(s).

I would prefer to name the variable something like: Modbus_Clarifier1_pHCtrl_PGain_Acid, but that's 35 characters.  It also happens to be how the variable is written in the SCADA system I'm using.  It would be best if the name were the same in both systems, but it's not worth losing the readability on the SCADA side just to maintain name-sync with the PLC.

Consequently, I'm providing a human-readable version of the name in the PLC Description field, and on the SCADA side I'm listing the PLC variable name in the Tag notes.   

[BobO]

No hardware limitation. It's on the list of future enhancements.

[Watermark_JS]

Eggzellent!!!     Probably too soon to ask about ETA...?

[Garyhlucas]

Here's a feature I have thought for a time would be very useful.  If any of you happen to read Circuit Cellar or other electronics magazines, you probably seen a hundred different small PLC like microprocessor boards.  Every time somebody posts about needing to control something on a forum you have half a dozen people saying "Use an Arduino, you can do that for $20!"  The problem is that most of those cheap solutions ignore how much work it is to build real world I/O that takes in to account all the things that PLC I/O does. In the end it is either unsafe, failure prone, or just as expensive as a PLC. And that Arduino board was obsolete and no longer available before they shipped it to you!

So how about the 'Hackable PLC'? A PLC that actually lets you have access to the microprocessor using programming tools like C or Java, or whatever.  If the firmware gave you access to all of the I/O modules and communications ports for whatever hardware platform the PLC worked with you could do some really do some amazing stuff, and your I/O would truly be real world, not a hack.

[BobO]

Here's a feature I have thought for a time would be very useful.  If any of you happen to read Circuit Cellar or other electronics magazines, you probably seen a hundred different small PLC like microprocessor boards.  Every time somebody posts about needing to control something on a forum you have half a dozen people saying "Use an Arduino, you can do that for $20!"  The problem is that most of those cheap solutions ignore how much work it is to build real world I/O that takes in to account all the things that PLC I/O does. In the end it is either unsafe, failure prone, or just as expensive as a PLC. And that Arduino board was obsolete and no longer available before they shipped it to you!

So how about the 'Hackable PLC'? A PLC that actually lets you have access to the microprocessor using programming tools like C or Java, or whatever.  If the firmware gave you access to all of the I/O modules and communications ports for whatever hardware platform the PLC worked with you could do some really do some amazing stuff, and your I/O would truly be real world, not a hack.

That was substantially what the WinPLC was, at least the WinCE version. It did enjoy a small but loyal fanbase, but was not a broad success.

I do see a future platform we are working on that could work nicely for something like this, but the sales and support would be problematic. ADC won't sell it and Host really doesn't have the infrastructure to do so, but perhaps we'll look into it when we have the appropriate hardware.

[plcnut]

A micro PLC, that is a small 'potted' board with one row of clamp-type screw terminals on it would be awesome. It would only need about 4 inputs with 2 dry relay outputs, and a serial port. The inputs would need to be software configurable as either analog or digital, and the power supply would need to operate on 5 to 24 VDC (automotive applications).

I was looking at one that was only available in Europe, but cannot find the website now...

Pricepoint could probably be ~$80

[BobO]

The nano I have mentioned is spec'ed to have 8 in, 4 out. We are hoping to have 4 of the inputs be combined analog and discrete, with configurable comparator thresholds. Ports are still being discussed, but will likely be limited to slave only, but we'll see. It will be an actual Do-more PLC (new DM0 class) in a actual housing, with a target price under $100. It wouldn't be hard at all to take that down further to a 4 in/2 out.

The lowest model of the new platform currently under development will be 6 DI/4 DO, with one model having 1 AI/1 AO. He will cost more, but is a full DM1 CPU. I would like the base model of that under $200, but that is still being determined.

We spent a long time developing Do-more and this is where it finally gets fun. Once you have the technology, adapting it to new stuff like this is easy.

[plcnut]

A potted, screw terminal board, would be great for applications that are not in a control cabinet and can get wet etc.

[HB_GUY]

The nano I have mentioned is spec'ed to have 8 in, 4 out. We are hoping to have 4 of the inputs be combined analog and discrete, with configurable comparator thresholds. Ports are still being discussed, but will likely be limited to slave only, but we'll see. It will be an actual Do-more PLC (new DM0 class) in a actual housing, with a target price under $100. It wouldn't be hard at all to take that down further to a 4 in/2 out.

The lowest model of the new platform currently under development will be 6 DI/4 DO, with one model having 1 AI/1 AO. He will cost more, but is a full DM1 CPU. I would like the base model of that under $200, but that is still being determined.

We spent a long time developing Do-more and this is where it finally gets fun. Once you have the technology, adapting it to new stuff like this is easy.

Any hints as to a release timeline? I am using H2-DM1E's in my current machines and we are looking to make a new smaller machine and it would be GREAT to have a smaller DM that I can just drop our existing program into... Very excited!!!! I love the DM line, and do not use anything else!

Another question, do you plan on having any of the inputs on the DM Nano be high speed inputs? Something that could take a pulse input from a flow meter or something like that. Not super high speed...

[BobO]

Any hints as to a release timeline? I am using H2-DM1E's in my current machines and we are looking to make a new smaller machine and it would be GREAT to have a smaller DM that I can just drop our existing program into... Very excited!!!! I love the DM line, and do not use anything else!

Another question, do you plan on having any of the inputs on the DM Nano be high speed inputs? Something that could take a pulse input from a flow meter or something like that. Not super high speed...

We expect the first models out next year. There will definitely be some high speed inputs.

[Controls Guy]

We expect the first models out next year.

Q1? 

[plcnut]

On the subject of new platforms:
Am I the only one that hates running wiring to the top and bottom of a PLC?
Maybe there are reasons that are beyond my understanding, but I would much prefer either all the wiring terminals across the bottom of a PLC, or the vertical wiring terminals like on DL205, or the CLICK; but I despise the top wiring on DL05/06 and Micrologix 1200/1500 etc.
Thoughts from other users?

[franji1]

Thoughts from other users?

Here's an old poll where this topic was discussed in some detail...

http://forum.hosteng.com/index.php/topic,201.0.html

[BobO]

On the subject of new platforms:
Am I the only one that hates running wiring to the top and bottom of a PLC?
Maybe there are reasons that are beyond my understanding, but I would much prefer either all the wiring terminals across the bottom of a PLC, or the vertical wiring terminals like on DL205, or the CLICK; but I despise the top wiring on DL05/06 and Micrologix 1200/1500 etc.
Thoughts from other users?

Bricks tend to favor board arrangements that work better with split terminals. Modulars generally like vertical arrangements. Our new system will employ both.

[plcnut]

Ah Franji1, I had forgot about that one...
I did not see any discussion there concerning the wire terminal location though.
I guess I'm just hinting that I would much prefer the vertical terminal blocks...